|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 11, 2006 23:28:47 GMT -5
www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/11/duceppe-afghanistan.htmlDuceppe bascially says he wants the mission to no longer involve aggressive fighting....wants to go back to being a reconstruction force. Certainly Jack Layton would join him. Conservatives sit with 124 seats. Liberals 102 Bloc 51 NDP 29 Ind. 2 80 votes would go for non-confidence right away. They'd need 125....less than half the Liberals. Could you imagine.....here we go again.......
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 11, 2006 23:39:26 GMT -5
The Liberals will vote for the mission. To vote against it, would be hypocritical, since they were the one's that sent our troops there, in the first place. Anyway, go for it! I want to see the Bloc and the Liberals vote together and look like opportunists. It'll just set up the country for a Conservative Majority. The sooner, the better!
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 12, 2006 6:57:04 GMT -5
Too early for Dion -- he hasn't had a chance to rally the troops nor set policy. Governement will not be defeated until March when the budget comes in.
Good ploy by Duceppe -- says the Liberals and the Conservatives are the same so vote BQ.
The Liberals have a better chance in the spring election with Dion at the helm because of Iggy's pro-Afghanistan stand.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 12, 2006 10:59:49 GMT -5
Gee, politicians creating controversy and plotting for power. What's new?
As far as I am concerned, Rooster Layton and Duceppe can be the first morsels of the Green party's Soylent Green project.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 12, 2006 11:04:42 GMT -5
The Liberals will vote for the mission. To vote against it, would be hypocritical, since they were the one's that sent our troops there, in the first place. Anyway, go for it! I want to see the Bloc and the Liberals vote together and look like opportunists. It'll just set up the country for a Conservative Majority. The sooner, the better! Please correct me if I'm wrong, princelh.... Libs sent the troops there on a reconstruction/security mission...but didn't Harper step it up to aggressive combat...on the recommendation of Hillier? And in terms of setting up the country for a Cons. majority....don't be so sure. It all depends on whether or not the country has had enough of the war....the U.S. population is certainly fed up.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 12, 2006 11:18:08 GMT -5
The Liberals will vote for the mission. To vote against it, would be hypocritical, since they were the one's that sent our troops there, in the first place. Anyway, go for it! I want to see the Bloc and the Liberals vote together and look like opportunists. It'll just set up the country for a Conservative Majority. The sooner, the better! Please correct me if I'm wrong, princelh.... Libs sent the troops there on a reconstruction/security mission...but didn't Harper step it up to aggressive combat...on the recommendation of Hillier? And in terms of setting up the country for a Cons. majority....don't be so sure. It all depends on whether or not the country has had enough of the war....the U.S. population is certainly fed up. The Liberals changed the role into a "multi-faceted" one.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 12, 2006 11:35:08 GMT -5
It'll just set up the country for a Conservative Majority. The sooner, the better! And in terms of setting up the country for a Cons. majority....don't be so sure. It all depends on whether or not the country has had enough of the war....the U.S. population is certainly fed up. In order for the Conservatives to win a majority government in the next election they will have to take Quebec. It ain't gonna happen. In order for the Liberals to win a majority government in the next election they will need to wrest 52 seats from the BQ and the Conservatives (mostly in Ontario). Again, ain't gonna happen. Unless either party self-destructs. Harper and the Conservatives are more likely to do that than the Liberals; Dion is already pounding the Conservatives as "scary". - Conservatives will lose seats in Quebec over Afghanistan, to the Liberals and the Bloc.
- Liberals will pick up a few seats in Quebec, at the expense of the Bloc.
- Minor movement elsewhere . . . if an election were held in six weeks (these "if an election were held today" questions are bogus, because we have to go through a campaign and minds change) we'd have a small minority government. The Liberals would be able to get more bills passed than the Conservatives because the NDP/Green coalition may be enough to hold balance of power (depends on how many seats the Liberals can steal from the Bloc).
Ah, fun in Ottawa . . . and we're about to quit for the Christmas break.
|
|
|
Post by Tankdriver on Dec 12, 2006 16:19:53 GMT -5
If Canada goes back to reconstruction/humanitarian aid, you've just thrown out 2 years for nothing. The media is so controlled right now, only those that have been there understand what truely is going on. We build it (schools, wells, etc.,) they destroy it. The local police are freaking family members of the taliban. You catch one trafficing drugs, hand him over to the local police and its "hey how's it going cousin". 3hrs later they are back on the street again.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 12, 2006 22:52:26 GMT -5
I think that the scary mantra will not hold in Canadian's minds this time. The Canadian populace have had one year to see the Conservatives in action. They have not done anything radical and have for the most part, kept their promises. Once the Conservative election machine gets going, and they do a comparison on their accomplishments, to what the Liberals had done and did not do, the comparison will be striking. The Nation in a Nation proclamation, will ring in the ears of many in Quebec and they will get as many seats, if not more, than the last election. Ontario may also give up more seats to the Conservatives, as well. Harper is more polished in debates than Dion, plus Mr. Layton's views being closer to Dion, will split the left wing vote, creating another Conservative victory. I just hope that it's a majority, so we don't have to have an election every spring.
On the War comment, it's not the same as the U.S. They have had 200,000+ troops in action in Iraq and it has been a much more brutal conflict. We have under 3,000 troops, but for once, we have been at the head of the fighting, in Afgansistan. We have showed the world that we are strong and not weaklings, like the perception left by the Chretien government. Harper will get credit for this perception, since he was the one who increased the defence budget and brought our armed forces to the for-front.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 13, 2006 7:37:44 GMT -5
We have under 3,000 troops, but for once, we have been at the head of the fighting, in Afgansistan. We have showed the world that we are strong and not weaklings, like the perception left by the Chretien government. Harper will get credit for this perception, since he was the one who increased the defence budget and brought our armed forces to the for-front. I can't believe I am saying this ..... sigh .... I actually agree with this. (washes mouth out with soap ) I hated the perception of the Canadian military under Chretien. I have to say that the military is looked upon more favourably and with more respect now than ever before in the last 15 years. The old joke was was we wouldn't win a war with Switzerland .... I think we are now moving towards becoming a militarially strong nation once again.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 13, 2006 8:52:40 GMT -5
We have under 3,000 troops, but for once, we have been at the head of the fighting, in Afgansistan. We have showed the world that we are strong and not weaklings, like the perception left by the Chretien government. Harper will get credit for this perception, since he was the one who increased the defence budget and brought our armed forces to the for-front. I can't believe I am saying this ..... sigh .... I actually agree with this. (washes mouth out with soap ) I hated the perception of the Canadian military under Chretien. I have to say that the military is looked upon more favourably and with more respect now than ever before in the last 15 years. The old joke was was we wouldn't win a war with Switzerland .... I think we are now moving towards becoming a militarially strong nation once again. The Torys have restored Canada's international respect IMHO. That started with their efforts in rebuilding our military. They did the right thing in appointing a former general as the Minister of National Defence. This new MND decided to listen to the concerns of his Chief of Defence Staff. These are two areas where the Liberals continually dropped the ball. They employed civilians in the defence protfolio who had no military experience. I think one guy was parade commander on his cadet graduation ... give me a break! But, when you employ unqualified people who will take them seriously when they open their mouths? Another area I think the Torys are strong in, is supporting Canadian citizens abroad. As a citizen, if you were imprisioned for whatever the reason, the Grits would employ 'quiet diplomacy'. I think of Bill Sampson's ordeal a few years back. Sampson had been wrongly imprisioned for two years in Saudi Arabia and tortured into a confession. During that time, he was quite frequently led to believe he was going to be beheaded. When he was released I remember Bill Graham gingerly coming down a set of steps to announce how the Canadian government was instrumental in Sampson's release. In reality, the only two words Sampson had for the Canadian representative in London, would be in violation of the Code of Conduct. His release actually came about as the result of efforts of Prince Charles. If I travelled abroad under the Liberals I knew I was on my own. Under the Torys I have support. And I only wish this Conservative government was in during my tenure in the military. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 13, 2006 8:59:29 GMT -5
We have under 3,000 troops, but for once, we have been at the head of the fighting, in Afgansistan. We have showed the world that we are strong and not weaklings, like the perception left by the Chretien government. Harper will get credit for this perception, since he was the one who increased the defence budget and brought our armed forces to the for-front. I can't believe I am saying this ..... sigh .... I actually agree with this. (washes mouth out with soap ) I hated the perception of the Canadian military under Chretien. I have to say that the military is looked upon more favourably and with more respect now than ever before in the last 15 years. The old joke was was we wouldn't win a war with Switzerland .... I think we are now moving towards becoming a militarially strong nation once again. Our PMs have takien an anti-US military action stance since the Korean War in terms of active fighting, haven't they? Pearson and Trudeau did not send troops to Vietnam. (Although Canada supported the U.S. by selling them billions in supplies, including napalm and other defoliants.) President Johnson even grabbed Pearson by the lapels and chastized him for mentioning in a speech that the U.S. should refrain from bombing North Vietnam. Before that, Diefenbaker refused to join the U.S. in their ramp-up to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Dief wouldn't even put the Canadian military on special alert. (Another member of the government did it secretly.) I think the Bloc/NDP/Liberals are going to try and paint Harper as "Bush Light". The approval rating decline of the Bush Administration, culminating in the Democrats controlling both the House and the Senate, show America's patience with the War on Terror is wearing very thin.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 13, 2006 10:26:55 GMT -5
Our PMs have taken an anti-US military action stance since the Korean War in terms of active fighting, haven't they? And most recently, Chretien made the decision to stay out of Iraq. Very prudent move IMHO. I think Harper finally got this. For the longest time he was emulating the US president's way of doing business. The press caught onto this immediately and after a while Harper had to change his approach. The Democrats are going to make Junior's life miserable for the remainder of his tenure and rightly so. I was led to believe that the Republicans had an exit strategy in place. Once Iraqi military and paramilitary forces had control of the country, the coalition would quietly pull out. However, that was before the civil war and that plan is now kaput. What they don't have control of either, is a situation that tankdriver cited earlier WRT Afghanistan. The paramilitary units and police forces are unpredictable and unreliable. The police in particular will stand idly by while their own people are abducted or even tortured and killed. They are driven by their religous beliefs rather than duty. And, as soon as it's announced that the coalition will be leaving, they won't be able to get out fast enough. It might make the Vietnam pullout look like a picnic. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 13, 2006 10:40:44 GMT -5
THe next interesting part of the American Political saga, will be to see who will win the Democratic nomination. Many believe Hillery Clinton, but don't discount Barac Obama. I still think that the Democratic genie can be put back in to the bottle, with a strong Republican Candidate. Does Ruddy Gulliani ring a clarion bell? Should be a knock'm down, draggin' out affair, down south.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 13, 2006 10:46:13 GMT -5
I am of two minds on this. One, I have been a big supporter of the war in Afghanistan (not Iraq), and really and truly believe that the world missed a glorious opportunity following 9/11 to do something really special there. That is, come together as a truly global coalition and rebuild/stabilize a failed state. I feel it’s almost hypocritical of me to say that it may be time to cut and run. After all, how can I say Canada should pull out, when I have been saying shame on the world, for having already pulled out? Aside from us, and a couple of other countries, who really cares about Afghanistan anymore?
Which brings me to the flip side of my mind. While I support and believe in the Afghanistan mission, at what point does pragmaticism take over, and at what point do we see we cannot go it alone, and nobody else is going to help us? As mentioned above, the rest of the world no longer cares about Afghanistan, the hundreds of thousands of troops, and the billions of dollars in aid, that were promised have disappeared into the mist of apathy. If those troops, and that money, isn’t going to come back, how long do we stay there fighting a lost cause? Forget the “we don’t want a war effort, we want to rebuild” BS that is being spouted now, you can’t have one without the other. The REAL question is, can WE win the war, AND rebuild Afghanistan? Or have we already lost?
Canada cannot do this alone. Given the recent and shameful shoulder-shrugging we got from our NATO “allies” when we asked them for help, there doesn’t appear to be any real inclination to see this mission through. Not from the US, not from NATO, not from the world. It will be a disaster, of course, pulling out, but are we simply prolonging the inevitable?
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 13, 2006 11:43:47 GMT -5
Our PMs have takien an anti-US military action stance since the Korean War in terms of active fighting, haven't they? Pearson and Trudeau did not send troops to Vietnam. (Although Canada supported the U.S. by selling them billions in supplies, including napalm and other defoliants.) President Johnson even grabbed Pearson by the lapels and chastized him for mentioning in a speech that the U.S. should refrain from bombing North Vietnam. Canada did not offer the US public support during Vietnam ... but they most certainly did support their war efforts. Thousands of Canadians fought during the Vietnam war ... although we did not publicly declare war on Vietnam, we did send troops to help our friends.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 13, 2006 12:04:55 GMT -5
I am of two minds on this. One, I have been a big supporter of the war in Afghanistan (not Iraq), and really and truly believe that the world missed a glorious opportunity following 9/11 to do something really special there. That is, come together as a truly global coalition and rebuild/stabilize a failed state. I feel it’s almost hypocritical of me to say that it may be time to cut and run. After all, how can I say Canada should pull out, when I have been saying shame on the world, for having already pulled out? Aside from us, and a couple of other countries, who really cares about Afghanistan anymore? Which brings me to the flip side of my mind. While I support and believe in the Afghanistan mission, at what point does pragmaticism take over, and at what point do we see we cannot go it alone, and nobody else is going to help us? As mentioned above, the rest of the world no longer cares about Afghanistan, the hundreds of thousands of troops, and the billions of dollars in aid, that were promised have disappeared into the mist of apathy. If those troops, and that money, isn’t going to come back, how long do we stay there fighting a lost cause? Forget the “we don’t want a war effort, we want to rebuild” BS that is being spouted now, you can’t have one without the other. The REAL question is, can WE win the war, AND rebuild Afghanistan? Or have we already lost? Canada cannot do this alone. Given the recent and shameful shoulder-shrugging we got from our NATO “allies” when we asked them for help, there doesn’t appear to be any real inclination to see this mission through. Not from the US, not from NATO, not from the world. It will be a disaster, of course, pulling out, but are we simply prolonging the inevitable? I think you're right in that the international community missed the boat, BC, but in a different context. Consider this; the original mandate was to remove the Taliban. What would have happened had NATO stuck to this one objective rather than agreeing to take on additional objectives like eradicating poppy fields and installing a democratic government? The latter point is what irks me the most. This was an autocratic society that had democracy imposed on them. The common 'Ali-Afghan' really doesn't understand the principal of an elected government and it becomes more of a factor the further out of Kabul you get. The current Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, might have been democratically elected but outside of his city he's known simply as the mayor of Kabul. However, initiatives are already being put in place for the eventual NATO withdrawl. Karzai is now surrounding himself with self-appointed thugs in important positions such as the police departments, so as to protect himself when the time comes. And once NATO does pull out, the Taliban will use it as standard around which they can recruit new blood. "See how NATO runs from the Taliban." Crap like that. Then we'll probably see Karzai and his goons run into exile. As for pulling out, that will come eventually. Canada and Britain have contributed until it hurts. In fact, Afghanistan has become bloodier than Iraq for the Brits. And as far as contributing to NATO, Canada's voice will now be heard. There's no way the US will be able to point the finger at Canada's government over a lack of commitment to NATO. Successive Liberal governments have felt that wrath and wondered why they had so many problems securing deals with the Americans. And, they still did nothing about it. The war is unwinnable, I can agree to that. But so long as other countries remain passive in their support, someone has to sustain the mission until it's time to pull out and that time, I'm really hoping, might be sooner than later. H owever, it's also important to note that the Dutch have taken some of the combat workload off the Canadians in Kandahar right now. I like to think that it had something to do with relationship between the two countries over the past few decades. In any case, this will be remembered by Canada. As will the lack of support from other countries. Canada will be pointing fingers in the future and, as a result of Afghanistan, they've earned the right to do it. Thanks troops!
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 13, 2006 15:32:17 GMT -5
Our PMs have takien an anti-US military action stance since the Korean War in terms of active fighting, haven't they? Pearson and Trudeau did not send troops to Vietnam. (Although Canada supported the U.S. by selling them billions in supplies, including napalm and other defoliants.) President Johnson even grabbed Pearson by the lapels and chastized him for mentioning in a speech that the U.S. should refrain from bombing North Vietnam. Canada did not offer the US public support during Vietnam ... but they most certainly did support their war efforts. Thousands of Canadians fought during the Vietnam war ... although we did not publicly declare war on Vietnam, we did send troops to help our friends. Canada did not send troops to Vietnam: they enlisted in the U.S. military. Concurrent with the draft dodging and defections to Canada, several thousand Canadians joined the U.S. military and fought with the Americans in Vietnam; estimates range from 3,500 to 10,000. Several thousand more Canadians joined and served with the U.S. military, but did not fight in Vietnam. One hundred ten (110) Canadians died in Vietnam and seven remain listed as Missing in Action. Many of these were Canadians who had long lived in the United States, Canadians with US citizenship who were drafted or had previously served in the U.S., and out-of-work soldiers who had been the victims of recent government cutbacks. Still others volunteered because of ideological or moral support of the American war effort. Wikipedia
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 13, 2006 17:55:16 GMT -5
Canada did not offer the US public support during Vietnam ... but they most certainly did support their war efforts. Thousands of Canadians fought during the Vietnam war ... although we did not publicly declare war on Vietnam, we did send troops to help our friends. Canada did not send troops to Vietnam: they enlisted in the U.S. military. Concurrent with the draft dodging and defections to Canada, several thousand Canadians joined the U.S. military and fought with the Americans in Vietnam; estimates range from 3,500 to 10,000. Several thousand more Canadians joined and served with the U.S. military, but did not fight in Vietnam. One hundred ten (110) Canadians died in Vietnam and seven remain listed as Missing in Action. Many of these were Canadians who had long lived in the United States, Canadians with US citizenship who were drafted or had previously served in the U.S., and out-of-work soldiers who had been the victims of recent government cutbacks. Still others volunteered because of ideological or moral support of the American war effort. Wikipedia Indeed. Peter C. Lemon
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 13, 2006 19:20:22 GMT -5
I am of two minds on this. One, I have been a big supporter of the war in Afghanistan (not Iraq), and really and truly believe that the world missed a glorious opportunity following 9/11 to do something really special there. That is, come together as a truly global coalition and rebuild/stabilize a failed state. I feel it’s almost hypocritical of me to say that it may be time to cut and run. After all, how can I say Canada should pull out, when I have been saying shame on the world, for having already pulled out? Aside from us, and a couple of other countries, who really cares about Afghanistan anymore? Which brings me to the flip side of my mind. While I support and believe in the Afghanistan mission, at what point does pragmaticism take over, and at what point do we see we cannot go it alone, and nobody else is going to help us? As mentioned above, the rest of the world no longer cares about Afghanistan, the hundreds of thousands of troops, and the billions of dollars in aid, that were promised have disappeared into the mist of apathy. If those troops, and that money, isn’t going to come back, how long do we stay there fighting a lost cause? Forget the “we don’t want a war effort, we want to rebuild” BS that is being spouted now, you can’t have one without the other. The REAL question is, can WE win the war, AND rebuild Afghanistan? Or have we already lost? Canada cannot do this alone. Given the recent and shameful shoulder-shrugging we got from our NATO “allies” when we asked them for help, there doesn’t appear to be any real inclination to see this mission through. Not from the US, not from NATO, not from the world. It will be a disaster, of course, pulling out, but are we simply prolonging the inevitable? Stop flipping your mind, it's not a pancake........ The entire area is stuck in the 18th century and without resources or industry, how is it going to be self sustaining? Do we keep proping up? It's not like it's going to cost us tens of billions to keep helping them but for how long? 10 years? 20 years? There is no way that I can support a one year cut and run policy. If you commit to do a job, you finish it the best way you can. Reconstructing a country is not a coat of paint. Can we go at it alone militarily? Sure, we have the economy to support it but sooner or later, the Taliban will start to read our papers and try even harder to fill body bags. Like all Western democracies, our will gets eroded through time and body bags.....to say nothing about politicians playing their games. We define what we want to do there and stay with a five year plan....and then take stock and see where we are.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 13, 2006 19:32:50 GMT -5
However, initiatives are already being put in place for the eventual NATO withdrawl. Karzai is now surrounding himself with self-appointed thugs in important positions such as the police departments, so as to protect himself when the time comes. And once NATO does pull out, the Taliban will use it as standard around which they can recruit new blood. "See how NATO runs from the Taliban." Crap like that. Then we'll probably see Karzai and his goons run into exile. ! It takes time to change a society. We can't do in in a year and we can't do it with only the point of a gun. The entire area is unstable to ay the least and Pakistan is one bullet away from a nuclear tipped nightmare. If we can draw one village at a time into the 2ist century, if we can show that that we are there to help and we want nothing from them, they will eventually get it. The alternative is far worse for them and far more dangerous for our society.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 15, 2006 9:49:13 GMT -5
It's not like it's going to cost us tens of billions to keep helping them but for how long? 10 years? 20 years? This is the question. How long do we keep helping them? At what point do we say we tried, it ain't going to happen? What is the tipping point? For the rest of the world, that point has already passed, and they've given up on Afghanistan. Can we, Canada, and our dwindling number of allies in this cause, win the battle all by ourselves? There is no way that I can support a one year cut and run policy. If you commit to do a job, you finish it the best way you can. Reconstructing a country is not a coat of paint. Can we go at it alone militarily? Sure, we have the economy to support it but sooner or later, the Taliban will start to read our papers and try even harder to fill body bags. Like all Western democracies, our will gets eroded through time and body bags.....to say nothing about politicians playing their games. I don't like to cut and run either, but I also don't like re-enforcing defeat. Again, if nobody else is going to help, can we do it all by ourselves? Quite the coup for Canada if we do, but as you say reconstructing a country ain't all that easy, especially not if we're going to go it alone. Ignore the tactics of the Taliban or the local yokels trying to win a Parliamentary seat, and ask the real question - can we win? Without the help of the US or the rest of the world? We define what we want to do there and stay with a five year plan....and then take stock and see where we are. Why five years? Why that arbitrary number? Either we (the collective we) think we are going to win, or we don't. We have to ask the hard questions, determine whether or not we're going to have to do this on our own, and go from there. I think we ARE going to have to do it on our own, and I DON'T think we can. Unfortunately Canada's reputation as a world player was severely diminished over the last decade or so, and we don't have the political clout anymore to run a little guerrilla diplomacy, demanding that other countries honor their commitments. They'll just ignore us, and our pleas will fall on deaf ears. If we had a little clout, I'd suggest to Stephen Harper that he start blasting some of his fellow leaders, loudly and publicly, and shame them back into Afghanistan. Alas...
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 15, 2006 22:10:36 GMT -5
The Liberals will vote for the mission. To vote against it, would be hypocritical, since they were the one's that sent our troops there, in the first place. Anyway, go for it! I want to see the Bloc and the Liberals vote together and look like opportunists. It'll just set up the country for a Conservative Majority. The sooner, the better! Surely to God you're kidding. Seems you've forgotten Harper sucking up to the Bloc to overthrow the government because the polls showed Canadians beginning to get over the Gomery report and starting to think of more substantial matters.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 15, 2006 22:38:10 GMT -5
And in terms of setting up the country for a Cons. majority....don't be so sure. It all depends on whether or not the country has had enough of the war....the U.S. population is certainly fed up. In order for the Conservatives to win a majority government in the next election they will have to take Quebec. It ain't gonna happen. In order for the Liberals to win a majority government in the next election they will need to wrest 52 seats from the BQ and the Conservatives (mostly in Ontario). Again, ain't gonna happen. Unless either party self-destructs. Harper and the Conservatives are more likely to do that than the Liberals; Dion is already pounding the Conservatives as "scary". Ah, fun in Ottawa . . . and we're about to quit for the Christmas break. - Conservatives will lose seats in Quebec over Afghanistan, to the Liberals and the Bloc.
- Liberals will pick up a few seats in Quebec, at the expense of the Bloc.
- Minor movement elsewhere . . . if an election were held in six weeks (these "if an election were held today" questions are bogus, because we have to go through a campaign and minds change) we'd have a small minority government. The Liberals would be able to get more bills passed than the Conservatives because the NDP/Green coalition may be enough to hold balance of power (depends on how many seats the Liberals can steal from the Bloc).
Yup. Good asessment. Harper and the right rump ARE scary. Dion will as promised offer a clear choice, the Canada Canadians have built with compassion and concern for those less fortunate, or the mutual alienation of the mean-spirited conservative right wing. They do not like the Canada we have built.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 15, 2006 22:53:24 GMT -5
Just bring it on and then take a 10 year vacation. Once the majority of Canadians see what the agenda is, between the Bloc and the Liberals, they'll send Harper back to 24 Sussex, with a majority. It's obvious that without a Quebec Leader as Prime Minister and a whinning Quebec Opposition, in the Bloc, then they can't control the rest of Canada. We've seen that show for too long and the rest of us aren't interested in it anymore. Go ahead and play the scary game. It's just another in a long line of scare tactics that failed last time and will fail again this time. Isn't it almost time to play the race card again too? We're waiting!!
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 15, 2006 23:02:06 GMT -5
I think that the scary mantra will not hold in Canadian's minds this time. The Canadian populace have had one year to see the Conservatives in action. They have not done anything radical and have for the most part, kept their promises. Once the Conservative election machine gets going, and they do a comparison on their accomplishments, to what the Liberals had done and did not do, the comparison will be striking. The Nation in a Nation proclamation, will ring in the ears of many in Quebec and they will get as many seats, if not more, than the last election. Ontario may also give up more seats to the Conservatives, as well. Harper is more polished in debates than Dion, plus Mr. Layton's views being closer to Dion, will split the left wing vote, creating another Conservative victory. I just hope that it's a majority, so we don't have to have an election every spring. On the War comment, it's not the same as the U.S. They have had 200,000+ troops in action in Iraq and it has been a much more brutal conflict. We have under 3,000 troops, but for once, we have been at the head of the fighting, in Afgansistan. We have showed the world that we are strong and not weaklings, like the perception left by the Chretien government. Harper will get credit for this perception, since he was the one who increased the defence budget and brought our armed forces to the for-front. It is the consensus of Canadians that the "nation" move of Harper was ill considered and wrong. Whichever it was it was not something that should have been tossed off the cuff for political reasons because Liberals were discussing it. Irresponsible. Quebecers are not impressed either. Dion's support is up in Quebec. Where do you get your ideas of what constitutes strength and weaklings. Coupled with your carefully couched terms with a racist slant, and voila, fascism. I know a lot of folks, when they're not watching WWF on tv, like to think that guys like Bush and the "lets kick some ass" types are 'strong'. Fact is these types are the most cowardly group on the planet. They are ruled by fear, hence the racist angle. They lack higher principles and the courage to resist stooping to a lower level of behaviour. I've played hockey against guys with similar persona. Cowards, fearful cowards. Didn't tough guy Bush run in the other direction from service and fail to show. Coward, greedy, selfish coward appealing to other greedy, selfish cowards. There are lots of them out there too.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 15, 2006 23:19:41 GMT -5
THe next interesting part of the American Political saga, will be to see who will win the Democratic nomination. Many believe Hillery Clinton, but don't discount Barac Obama. I still think that the Democratic genie can be put back in to the bottle, with a strong Republican Candidate. Does Ruddy Gulliani ring a clarion bell? Should be a knock'm down, draggin' out affair, down south. Bush should be impeached and possibly be charged with treason. If Americans can vote Republican after this most corrupt and internationally terrorist govenment...I forget, vice and fear are strong.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 15, 2006 23:22:59 GMT -5
OK, you two . . . back to your corners.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 16, 2006 10:34:14 GMT -5
But I like the stimulating conversation! Torontohab and I are at total disagreement with each other, but I respect his right to say it. It gives me an opportuntiy to refrute the Liberal point of view. You know that you've got the best of a Liberal, when you are called A) A Racist. B) Biggot. C) Western Redneck. D) A Bush Republican. LOL!!!!
|
|